Except the law that if you do, you will go down there. Four major religions (Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, and Judaism) have a religious law against taking of life but no law against sharing of information. (Besides, OJ was never found guilty of any homicide.)
Thou shalt not steal would appear to cover 'sharing' of information. (Funny how people who want the information - which must have value to them - and don't want to pay for it call it 'sharing', and the people who have the information, and want them to pay for what they own which *has* value, call it stealing isn't it?)
Oh, and by the way - religious dogma is not a 'physical' or 'natural' law. Physics runs on blind faith, which you would appear to have bought in bulk.
Simon
Re:So where does the information come from?
on
A Map to Nowhere?
·
· Score: 2
People have portrayed the task of unravelling the human genome as a Herculean task. Well, the entire genome can be fitted on a CDROM. That isn't very much data at all. Are we really saying that the human body is no more complex that a copy of Windows 2000?
Obviously, it is. So where is this extra information located? It is obvious that there must be some other mechanism at work. I would posit that the mechanism is supernatural.
There really is no other explanation. The Church has known this for many thousands of years, and now the scientists are realising it too.
Really? Well why the hell didn't The Church (which one? I know of thousands throughout history) tell us so that we didn't have to waste so many dollars? The Church could have just said "Oh there ya go... we had this medicine thing and this genome thing licked years ago... this is what we found out... and here's all the data we amassed on the way".
Ignorance is not bliss - except for the religious. It's just ignorance.
"What inherent *right* do you have to take my recipe?"
Inherently, once you show me the recipe, there is no law of physical nature that prevents me from reproducing the recipe to the letter and using to create cookies, even in competition with you. To assume that a government-granted monopoly system is "inherent" is begging the question.
... and also inherently, there is no law of physical nature that forces him to allow you take his recipe and do whatever you want with it. Rights have nothing to do with physical laws -- they're all constructs. To assume that you have the right to do whatever you want with anything just because nothing physical happens to another party is begging the question in itself. Rights, and laws, are manmade constructs. They don't have anything to do with whether something has physical consequences or not.
They could pass a law that outlaws cloning tomorrow. It's physically possible. It doesn't affect the original DNA owner in any physical way - it's a copy, after all. If they passed that law would you still have the 'right' to perform cloning? No you would not. Would there be any law of nature preventing it? No there would not.
Okay... let me reprise the thread, as it appears you've not read the rest.
"Why are thoughts and ideas like physical property?
If someone, however, uses your cookie receipe without your permission, nothing is actually "taken" -- and there's *more* cookies in the world."
---
But then *they* can make cookies and sell them to people who would have been your customers. Then *they* will make some of the money *you* would have gotten selling them yourself. So you are effectively stealing money from them.
---
Maybe. But what inherent *right* do you have to make money selling cookies?
---
My point being: What right do you have to just take the recipe in the first place? He has no more 'right' to make money selling cookies than you do to take his recipe.
We're not talking about a situation where goods were exchanged here. It's not a 'fair trade'. We're talking about a situation where intellectual property is not regarded as 'property'.
I say again: what right do you have to take the recipe in the first place?
There's a big difference between things (like cookies, bullion, potato chips) and information (cookie recipies). I can copy your cookie recipe without you even knowing about it and bake all the cookies I want -- do you *really* want me to believe that's equivalent to coming into your kitchen and raiding the cookie jar? One leaves you hungry, the other just clueless.
The crux of the matter is this:
Intellectual Property takes time to create.
Physical Property takes time to create.
You can never get that time back.
Therefore, you should be able to choose how you want to be compensated for the time you spend creating that thing - whether it be Intellectual or Physical.
If your 'customers' decide that they don't want to agree to the terms of your bargain, then they're welcome to do so -- and not get that thing you have created. After all, why do they want it if it's not worth - in turn - something to them? And if it's worth something to them, and it took a portion of your life that you'll never get back to create it, then surely you should be compensated - as it's worth something to you as well.
Now do you get it? Why do you want their cookie recipe? Why not come up with your own? Theirs tastes better? Well, they put the effort in to create it - so you owe them whatever the two of you agree to in return for the recipe.
Taking the argument to the limit: If authors have no copyright (ie. intellectual property is not viewed as property at all), then they cannot be compensated for creating that work. Therefore they need to do *other* kinds of work to be able to create. At a certain point, you're working (say) 14 hours a day making ends meet. You're not going to have time to work on that book you want to work on. After all, the moment it's done, everyone can take it from you. So is it worth completing it just for your own satisfaction? Or do you go to bed instead and get a good night's sleep?
Hmmm... Wasn't Jeff Minter the first guy to really really really do this stuff on home computers? Yet there's no mention of ColorSpace, Trip-a-Tron, Virtual Light Machine, or any of the other things he's done.
Mind you he wasn't the first person to do this kind o' thing - Walt Disney gets that credit for Fantasia.
What it does: Matt's Hack TV allows you to take advantage of your Power Macintosh AV input and output ports to convert,
in real time, NTSC to PAL, NTSC to SECAM, PAL to SECAM, or whatever combination. What you need is two video devices (two
VCRs, for example) which understand the appropriate video standard and your Macintosh will do the rest. I've only been
able to test the PAL NTSC aspect, but I don't expect there to be any problems with SECAM functionality.
One user has setup his Power Macintosh to his satellite system so that he can watch PAL broadcasts on his NTSC TV, in
real time!
I can't speak as to the quality of the Analog converters (DAC) used in the Power Macintosh, but I suspect that it does
not match the quality found in professional or dedicated systems. But hey, if you already own a Power Macintosh, it's
practically free (excepting the cost of the PAL VCR or camcorder).
Related Info: How do I setup my Power Macintosh for video standard conversions? The first step is to make sure that you
have RCA or S-VHS plugs connected to the ports at the back of your machine. Then, you must restart so that the Macintosh
goes into a dual-screen mode. You might notice that your main screen doesn't have as many colors available to it since
part of the video RAM is being used to drive the virtual monitor for the video-out port. If you either connect the input
video to the output port or have a VCR plugged in and turned on, you should be able to see what's displayed on the
virtual monitor (and goes to the video-out port). You should at least see your desktop pattern. Launch Matt's Hack TV
and set the input type to PAL, even though your virtual monitor is likely set to NTSC. Move all windows out of sight and
open the Monitors & Sound Control Panel. Move the main window out of the way (window-shade it even) and you'll be able
to see a second window that sets the characteristics of the virtual monitor, including bit depth and resolution. To
access the monitor, you'll have to move your mouse off your main screen and onto the virtual screen. For PAL output,
choose one of the PAL settings. For NTSC or SECAM, choose the appropriate setting.
Where to buy PAL equipment: I bought a PAL-system VCR through the mail from B&H Photo and Video in New York (I'm on the
west coast of the USA). Their web site is http://www.bhphoto.com. They also sell professional equipment and had
reasonable prices, so I felt pretty comfortable buying from them. And no, I am in no way affiliated with them (wouldn't
that be nice!).
Hey! My color picker stopped working! Actually, it's a problem with the color picker itself. The color picker
automatically chooses the deepest-pixel-depth monitor, which (if you have the problem) is the virtual monitor.
Unplugging the video-out jack and rebooting will restore expected behavior.
Background: I wrote this software to use in conjunction with a PAL-system VCR to which I transfer home video in
originally shot in NTSC. This way I can send video to friends overseas. I looked around for an application which
performed a similar task, but couldn't find one. So I wrote my own, based on sample code found at Apple's QuickTime
site, written by Gary Woodcock and called Hack TV.
With version 2.0 I added menubar hiding (thanks to sample code from David Hayward at Apple DTS), preferences file
support (thanks to Jim Luther, Apple DTS Emeritus), and clipping support.
Change History March 1999. Minor change to fix compatibility issues with third-party digitizing cards, such as the iREZ
Capsure for PowerBooks.
October 1998. Added Appearance Manager features (now required). Added a proper preferences file. Added clipping feature.
Changed background blackout functionality for better reliability. Added Òhide menubar option.Ó Squashed,
created, then squashed innumerable bugs. Now $10 shareware.
March 1998. Released as version 1.0.1. Changes to documentation.
March 1998. Released as version 1.0.0 First release.
Esoterica Anyone desiring to donate Mamiya medium-format camera equipment or SGI computer equipment/software to my
cause, be sure to contact me!
So, why the $10 charge? That's a tough question. The short answer is that we (my family and I) need the money and it
takes time to develop software.
The long answer: When I wrote the first version, I made it free, as my own meager contribution back into the world
society that is the Internet.
The Internet was founded on sharing information and ideas. In fact, arguably some of the best software out there is
free. Unix is a prime example of this. Perhaps, in my case, this is just an instance of not being very proficient at
programming, so it takes a lot of time away from other tasks. The bottom line is that while it genuinely pains me to
charge for software, the pain is inconsequential when compared to that felt when I see my monthly stack of bills. So
please understand. And please pay =:-)
"
Conclusion? He just fancied some cash and decided to try his luck. He lost. Awww... too bad.
Sure MS has the right to whatever kind of marketing they want. what nintendo is wisely pointing out is that the retailers are shooting themseleves in the foot by going along with this.
The retailers probably don't give a flying f*ck, because they'll get more money for store-space advertizing deals than they will in terms of margin on the Nintendo consoles and cartridges.
Besides, most people stopped buying N64's when the PS2 was pre-announced.:)
Simon
Re:Trust the Source, Luke
on
NSA Inside?
·
· Score: 1
That said, having a government agency that is extremely security aware submitting patches is a SCARY thing, but not for the reason you think. I can hear the Microsoft marketing machine cranking up now to spread the FUD: "Linux is now receiving submissions from the NSA, the government agency responsible for protecting National Security. Make sure you don't put your tax records on Linux!"
Turnabout is fair play -- the Linux community have been doing this for quite some time regarding Windows.
Simon
Re:Should be taken seriously?
on
New Linux Worm
·
· Score: 1
So, yes, I seriously do think that MSFT "stooges" Slashdot. MSFT has such a track record that I believe any pro-MSFT opinion expressed in a public forum has to be viewed with a fair amount of suspicion.
I think that any pro-ANYTHING opinion expressed in a public forum has to be viewed with a fair amount of suspicion. Same with any negative-ANYTHING opinion.
Simon
Re:Should be taken seriously?
on
New Linux Worm
·
· Score: 1
As far as the Microsoft shills who say that now they (the paid MSFT shills)
Well, heck, in that case, I claim that you are a paid Linux shill!
Come on -- do you SERIOUSLY think that Microsoft would bother stooging a site like this? Its credibility is much better served by the pro OSS and Linux advocates who rabidly jump against Microsoft every chance they get.
You wonder why so many non-techies view us as raving lunatics, or arrogant shits. This is why. All we ever seem to do is foam at the mouth about how everything not Linux is evil, and that Open Source is the One True Way. And then we strut around like pumped-up little martinets, so convinced of our own greatness, and the mistaken belief that we are infallible.
Actually as a techie, I view a lot of Slashdot's population in exactly the same way. It's a tool, people -- not a religion.
If they were using their own equipment, then that means that they have telescopes a million times more powerful than what NASA has. I'm taking a wild guess that this is not the case, but if so, that's pretty spooky.
Well, if they did have their own, they'd be in Earth orbit, and big enough that you'd be able to see them on a clear night. Even with active-optics, you can't get that kind of resolving power from the ground, and even Hubble can't get a clear look at Mars (the resolution is still not high enough for the kind of detail you'd need) -- which is one reason why they sent the mapping probes, rather than just scanning from here.
If NASA is able to spot a polar lander from orbital photography, why do we still have all these disputes over the history of mars; i.e. whether or not Mars had water, whether canals were formed by water, etc.
Optical illusions, produced by telescopic viewing of Mars with a resolution of poorer than about 100 km, first reported by Schiaparelli ('canali' is the Italian for 'channels') and especially championed by Percival Lowell (1855 - 1916). These observers produced maps of the martian surface showing interconnected networks of canals, implying the presence of intelligent life on Mars. The intelligence which devised the canals was, however, on the terrestrial side of the telescope.
The rats use their engineering skillz to save Mrs. Frisby's home and children. No magic stone needed.
Are you sure? After all, the rats did get all kinds of drug testing done on them. Though I'll concede on the magic point. Everyone knows that the best way to get engineers to do anything[1] is to get them magically stoned.
Simon
[1] Well, okay, there's a 15% chance they'll do something useful, and an 85% chance that they'll just gorge themselves fit to burst on pizza, but that's a risk you have to take.
Slashdot Mirror
Keep choosing M$, I hope you never figure out the standard C api, and live forever in C++ lala land.
Uhh... just for giggles... what's wrong with C++?
If you'd said Java, then sure, I'd agree. But C++? Jeez.
Simon
Except the law that if you do, you will go down there. Four major religions (Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, and Judaism) have a religious law against taking of life but no law against sharing of information. (Besides, OJ was never found guilty of any homicide.)
Thou shalt not steal would appear to cover 'sharing' of information. (Funny how people who want the information - which must have value to them - and don't want to pay for it call it 'sharing', and the people who have the information, and want them to pay for what they own which *has* value, call it stealing isn't it?)
Oh, and by the way - religious dogma is not a 'physical' or 'natural' law. Physics runs on blind faith, which you would appear to have bought in bulk.
Simon
People have portrayed the task of unravelling the human genome as a Herculean task. Well, the entire genome can be fitted on a CDROM. That isn't very much data at all. Are we really saying that the human body is no more complex that a copy of Windows 2000?
Obviously, it is. So where is this extra information located? It is obvious that there must be some other mechanism at work. I would posit that the mechanism is supernatural.
There really is no other explanation. The Church has known this for many thousands of years, and now the scientists are realising it too.
Really? Well why the hell didn't The Church (which one? I know of thousands throughout history) tell us so that we didn't have to waste so many dollars? The Church could have just said "Oh there ya go... we had this medicine thing and this genome thing licked years ago... this is what we found out... and here's all the data we amassed on the way".
Ignorance is not bliss - except for the religious. It's just ignorance.
Simon
"What inherent *right* do you have to take my recipe?"
Inherently, once you show me the recipe, there is no law of physical nature that prevents me from reproducing the recipe to the letter and using to create cookies, even in competition with you. To assume that a government-granted monopoly system is "inherent" is begging the question.
... and also inherently, there is no law of physical nature that forces him to allow you take his recipe and do whatever you want with it. Rights have nothing to do with physical laws -- they're all constructs. To assume that you have the right to do whatever you want with anything just because nothing physical happens to another party is begging the question in itself. Rights, and laws, are manmade constructs. They don't have anything to do with whether something has physical consequences or not.
They could pass a law that outlaws cloning tomorrow. It's physically possible. It doesn't affect the original DNA owner in any physical way - it's a copy, after all. If they passed that law would you still have the 'right' to perform cloning? No you would not. Would there be any law of nature preventing it? No there would not.
QED
Okay... let me reprise the thread, as it appears you've not read the rest.
"Why are thoughts and ideas like physical property?
If someone, however, uses your cookie receipe without your permission, nothing is actually "taken" -- and there's *more* cookies in the world."
---
But then *they* can make cookies and sell them to people who would have been your customers. Then *they* will make some of the money *you* would have gotten selling them yourself. So you are effectively stealing money from them.
---
Maybe. But what inherent *right* do you have to make money selling cookies?
---
My point being: What right do you have to just take the recipe in the first place? He has no more 'right' to make money selling cookies than you do to take his recipe.
We're not talking about a situation where goods were exchanged here. It's not a 'fair trade'. We're talking about a situation where intellectual property is not regarded as 'property'.
I say again: what right do you have to take the recipe in the first place?
Simon
"Take"? Who said anything about "taking"? Taking implies that I have it, and you don't. That's exactly what's not happening.
My apologies. I was using "Take" in the sense of "Copy". As in "take a copy".
What right do you have to *copy* my recipe then?
Simon
Maybe. But what inherent *right* do you have to make money selling cookies?
What inherent *right* do you have to take my recipe?
There's a big difference between things (like cookies, bullion, potato chips) and information (cookie recipies). I can copy your cookie recipe without you even knowing about it and bake all the cookies I want -- do you *really* want me to believe that's equivalent to coming into your kitchen and raiding the cookie jar? One leaves you hungry, the other just clueless.
The crux of the matter is this:
Intellectual Property takes time to create.
Physical Property takes time to create.
You can never get that time back.
Therefore, you should be able to choose how you want to be compensated for the time you spend creating that thing - whether it be Intellectual or Physical.
If your 'customers' decide that they don't want to agree to the terms of your bargain, then they're welcome to do so -- and not get that thing you have created. After all, why do they want it if it's not worth - in turn - something to them? And if it's worth something to them, and it took a portion of your life that you'll never get back to create it, then surely you should be compensated - as it's worth something to you as well.
Now do you get it? Why do you want their cookie recipe? Why not come up with your own? Theirs tastes better? Well, they put the effort in to create it - so you owe them whatever the two of you agree to in return for the recipe.
Taking the argument to the limit: If authors have no copyright (ie. intellectual property is not viewed as property at all), then they cannot be compensated for creating that work. Therefore they need to do *other* kinds of work to be able to create. At a certain point, you're working (say) 14 hours a day making ends meet. You're not going to have time to work on that book you want to work on. After all, the moment it's done, everyone can take it from you. So is it worth completing it just for your own satisfaction? Or do you go to bed instead and get a good night's sleep?
Simon
Hmmm... Wasn't Jeff Minter the first guy to really really really do this stuff on home computers? Yet there's no mention of ColorSpace, Trip-a-Tron, Virtual Light Machine, or any of the other things he's done.
Mind you he wasn't the first person to do this kind o' thing - Walt Disney gets that credit for Fantasia.
Simon
Hey, I'm not thrilled about moving to digital either, but it will give us more channels... right?
Yeah, and all of them except the pay per view movies will be MPEG-2 encoded at 2Mb/s.
Which, if you didn't know already, is kinda crap resolution. You get all kinds of artefacts if the picture changes - eg. on a fade in/out.
Simon
There's only five channels I watch.
PBS
Sci-Fi
Comedy Central
BBC America
UPN.
That's it. And I watch BBC America and PBS more than the others. And I have digital cable. So explain that.
Simon
The problem is, that according to his site, version 1.0 is free, and version 2.0 is shareware.
This means that Ariston can FREELY redistribute it on their CDs, as long as the end users abide by the license terms.
License terms he gave on version 1.0:
"Matt's Hack TV, Version 1.0 Portions of application ©1998 Matt Warner Portions ©1992 by Apple
Computer, Inc. 'Email-me' ware: drop me a short note to let me know if you find this application useful. The application
is free and is not to be sold. There are no guarantees nor warranties regarding this software."
License terms he gave on version 2.0:
"Matt's Hack TV, Version 2.0, October 1998 Portions of application ©1998 Matt Warner Contact Info:
or Portions ©1992 by Apple Computer, Inc. $10 Shareware. There are no
guarantees nor warranties regarding this software.
What it does: Matt's Hack TV allows you to take advantage of your Power Macintosh AV input and output ports to convert,
in real time, NTSC to PAL, NTSC to SECAM, PAL to SECAM, or whatever combination. What you need is two video devices (two
VCRs, for example) which understand the appropriate video standard and your Macintosh will do the rest. I've only been
able to test the PAL NTSC aspect, but I don't expect there to be any problems with SECAM functionality.
One user has setup his Power Macintosh to his satellite system so that he can watch PAL broadcasts on his NTSC TV, in
real time!
I can't speak as to the quality of the Analog converters (DAC) used in the Power Macintosh, but I suspect that it does
not match the quality found in professional or dedicated systems. But hey, if you already own a Power Macintosh, it's
practically free (excepting the cost of the PAL VCR or camcorder).
Related Info: How do I setup my Power Macintosh for video standard conversions? The first step is to make sure that you
have RCA or S-VHS plugs connected to the ports at the back of your machine. Then, you must restart so that the Macintosh
goes into a dual-screen mode. You might notice that your main screen doesn't have as many colors available to it since
part of the video RAM is being used to drive the virtual monitor for the video-out port. If you either connect the input
video to the output port or have a VCR plugged in and turned on, you should be able to see what's displayed on the
virtual monitor (and goes to the video-out port). You should at least see your desktop pattern. Launch Matt's Hack TV
and set the input type to PAL, even though your virtual monitor is likely set to NTSC. Move all windows out of sight and
open the Monitors & Sound Control Panel. Move the main window out of the way (window-shade it even) and you'll be able
to see a second window that sets the characteristics of the virtual monitor, including bit depth and resolution. To
access the monitor, you'll have to move your mouse off your main screen and onto the virtual screen. For PAL output,
choose one of the PAL settings. For NTSC or SECAM, choose the appropriate setting.
Where to buy PAL equipment: I bought a PAL-system VCR through the mail from B&H Photo and Video in New York (I'm on the
west coast of the USA). Their web site is http://www.bhphoto.com. They also sell professional equipment and had
reasonable prices, so I felt pretty comfortable buying from them. And no, I am in no way affiliated with them (wouldn't
that be nice!).
Hey! My color picker stopped working! Actually, it's a problem with the color picker itself. The color picker
automatically chooses the deepest-pixel-depth monitor, which (if you have the problem) is the virtual monitor.
Unplugging the video-out jack and rebooting will restore expected behavior.
Background: I wrote this software to use in conjunction with a PAL-system VCR to which I transfer home video in
originally shot in NTSC. This way I can send video to friends overseas. I looked around for an application which
performed a similar task, but couldn't find one. So I wrote my own, based on sample code found at Apple's QuickTime
site, written by Gary Woodcock and called Hack TV.
With version 2.0 I added menubar hiding (thanks to sample code from David Hayward at Apple DTS), preferences file
support (thanks to Jim Luther, Apple DTS Emeritus), and clipping support.
Change History March 1999. Minor change to fix compatibility issues with third-party digitizing cards, such as the iREZ
Capsure for PowerBooks.
October 1998. Added Appearance Manager features (now required). Added a proper preferences file. Added clipping feature.
Changed background blackout functionality for better reliability. Added Òhide menubar option.Ó Squashed,
created, then squashed innumerable bugs. Now $10 shareware.
March 1998. Released as version 1.0.1. Changes to documentation.
March 1998. Released as version 1.0.0 First release.
Esoterica Anyone desiring to donate Mamiya medium-format camera equipment or SGI computer equipment/software to my
cause, be sure to contact me!
So, why the $10 charge? That's a tough question. The short answer is that we (my family and I) need the money and it
takes time to develop software.
The long answer: When I wrote the first version, I made it free, as my own meager contribution back into the world
society that is the Internet.
The Internet was founded on sharing information and ideas. In fact, arguably some of the best software out there is
free. Unix is a prime example of this. Perhaps, in my case, this is just an instance of not being very proficient at
programming, so it takes a lot of time away from other tasks. The bottom line is that while it genuinely pains me to
charge for software, the pain is inconsequential when compared to that felt when I see my monthly stack of bills. So
please understand. And please pay =:-)
"
Conclusion? He just fancied some cash and decided to try his luck. He lost. Awww... too bad.
Simon
Yeah, how dare someone make an anti-Microsoft comment.
Was it a justified comment, or a gross overgeneralization?
It was a gross overgeneralization.
Does person X know anything about the Windows 95 codebase, other than that it's regarded as crap by Linux users?
No he does not.
Do most Linux users know anything about the Windows 95 codebase?
No they do not.
Therefore, with no data on the quality of the Windows 95 codebase, how can you make a statement regarding the quality of the Windows 95 codebase?
Answer: You cannot.
Is Windows 95 unstable?
Yes it is.
Is it possible to make it more stable?
No it is not - not if you want to keep full DOS compatibility.
So was the comment warranted?
No.
Simon
Apart from the Wine developers.
Get a clue. Oh, sorry, it's Slashdot. Any anti-MS comment gets applause from the floor to the rafters.
Simon
Sure MS has the right to whatever kind of marketing they want. what nintendo is wisely pointing out is that the retailers are shooting themseleves in the foot by going along with this.
:)
The retailers probably don't give a flying f*ck, because they'll get more money for store-space advertizing deals than they will in terms of margin on the Nintendo consoles and cartridges.
Besides, most people stopped buying N64's when the PS2 was pre-announced.
Simon
That said, having a government agency that is extremely security aware submitting patches is a SCARY thing, but not for the reason you think. I can hear the Microsoft marketing machine cranking up now to spread the FUD: "Linux is now receiving submissions from the NSA, the government agency responsible for protecting National Security. Make sure you don't put your tax records on Linux!"
Turnabout is fair play -- the Linux community have been doing this for quite some time regarding Windows.
Simon
So, yes, I seriously do think that MSFT "stooges" Slashdot. MSFT has such a track record that I believe any pro-MSFT opinion expressed in a public forum has to be viewed with a fair amount of suspicion.
I think that any pro-ANYTHING opinion expressed in a public forum has to be viewed with a fair amount of suspicion. Same with any negative-ANYTHING opinion.
Simon
As far as the Microsoft shills who say that now they (the paid MSFT shills)
Well, heck, in that case, I claim that you are a paid Linux shill!
Come on -- do you SERIOUSLY think that Microsoft would bother stooging a site like this? Its credibility is much better served by the pro OSS and Linux advocates who rabidly jump against Microsoft every chance they get.
Occam's razor - skins em every time.
Simon
You wonder why so many non-techies view us as raving lunatics, or arrogant shits. This is why. All we ever seem to do is foam at the mouth about how everything not Linux is evil, and that Open Source is the One True Way. And then we strut around like pumped-up little martinets, so convinced of our own greatness, and the mistaken belief that we are infallible.
Actually as a techie, I view a lot of Slashdot's population in exactly the same way. It's a tool, people -- not a religion.
Tools chip, break, and fall apart. All tools do.
Simon
Am I the only person who didn't realize that the GB still used a Z80 processor still?
Actually, it's not a Z80 -- it has a couple of specialized instructions, and is missing the exchange register set. But it's pretty damn close.
Actually, it's pretty close to an 8080 with different mnemonics, but I digress.
Check out here for the instruction listings, if you'd like to know more, or here for info on D-I-Y original gameboy and gameboy color development.
Simon
These utilities sound very useful. Could you please post links to their websites?
I'm not the original poster, but...
SysInternals has the goods...
Si
If they were using their own equipment, then that means that they have telescopes a million times more powerful than what NASA has. I'm taking a wild guess that this is not the case, but if so, that's pretty spooky.
Well, if they did have their own, they'd be in Earth orbit, and big enough that you'd be able to see them on a clear night. Even with active-optics, you can't get that kind of resolving power from the ground, and even Hubble can't get a clear look at Mars (the resolution is still not high enough for the kind of detail you'd need) -- which is one reason why they sent the mapping probes, rather than just scanning from here.
Simon
If NASA is able to spot a polar lander from orbital photography, why do we still have all these disputes over the history of mars; i.e. whether or not Mars had water, whether canals were formed by water, etc.
Uhhh... what canals?
Lowell had a dodgy telescope.
martian canals ('canali')
Optical illusions, produced by telescopic viewing of Mars with a resolution of poorer than about 100 km, first reported by Schiaparelli ('canali' is the Italian for 'channels') and especially championed by Percival Lowell (1855 - 1916). These observers produced maps of the martian surface showing interconnected networks of canals, implying the presence of intelligent life on Mars. The intelligence which devised the canals was, however, on the terrestrial side of the telescope.
A Dictionary of Earth Sciences, © Oxford University Press 1999
The rats use their engineering skillz to save Mrs. Frisby's home and children. No magic stone needed.
Are you sure? After all, the rats did get all kinds of drug testing done on them. Though I'll concede on the magic point. Everyone knows that the best way to get engineers to do anything[1] is to get them magically stoned.
Simon
[1] Well, okay, there's a 15% chance they'll do something useful, and an 85% chance that they'll just gorge themselves fit to burst on pizza, but that's a risk you have to take.
My only real annoyance at this article is that they make it out as if Sun invented the goddamn thing.
Wanna see who did? Go to:
The Amulet Group.
It's an offshoot of the ARM team.
Simon